/lit/ - Literature

Nobody who tries to define good and evil in impersonal definite terms is worthy of the title "Philosopher".

yeah i did

Socrates and Platl went out of their way to say that there were no teachers of virtue and no way to pin virtue down using naive sophisticated tools like definitions.

So just don't look there lol

"What is good is what makes me happy. What is bad is what makes me unhappy." - Doug (me), 2016, philosopher

non-philosofag here. probably lots did, yes, and probably nietzche or someone like that said that good and evil do not exist. nietzche was right.

love
-anon

Unnecessary words desu.

>>8329089
You'll find that philosophers do this all the time when considering the question of evil in our world.

Don't be pretentious.

>>8329092
sophistical*

>>8329099
It's true that a bunch of self-proclaimed philosophers do that, sure. Especially theologians and analytic philisophers. So, I mean, you know...

>>8329099
Like I said, they are categorically unworthy on the grounds that they make this claim.

>10 replies
>Still no answer
You guys could hold your autism for your mothers or something

>>8329089
yeah man fuck kant lol

Philosophy does not apply to real life.

It is theoretical.

>>8329110
Like Epicurus or Descartes...?

Are you seriously trying to imply that any philosopher who categories morality is not worth our time? Do you know how many renowned philosophers are realists?

>>8329122
The answer is: ask a better question, fuckface.
Why the hell would you define it. Creating a system for things makes you inflexible and you start to see everything through that system's lens.
Defining gudnbad is an exercise in imbecility.

I'm no philosophy expert but didn't the greeks agreed that everything that made man virtuous is inherently good?

>>8329142
>Complaining about systems
>Expressing himself in words that are inherent axioms

>>8329122
Good if a value judgment, not a fact. Facts are susceptible to acurate definitions, values are not.

That's not to say subjectivism is true. It's just to say definitions are the wrong approach when it comes to morality.

Which is why philosophers like Plato have preferred a dialectical approach to morality, and philosophers like Kant have said it's always something circumstantial that your power of reason must work out for itself.

Dummies have tried straightforward answers. Consider utilitarianism. But the shortcoming of this approach is that it conflates facts and values. Which is not only a logical fallacy, for analytic fags, but also a pre-historical way of thinking, for continental fags.

>>8329142
>I can act snarky and pretend to be smart: the post

>>8329148
Oh hey whaddup Gadamer

>>8329154
At least say something like >>8329148
The fuck are you even on about?
>>8329148
One is a necessity. The systems I am complaining about are not.

>>8329164
Isn't necessary to know what is good and bad?
How do you then know what should be legal and what not? How can you explain that rape is bad? How can you say that killing one person is good or bad? I'm curious about this shit.

>>8329172
>Isn't necessary to know what is good and bad?
You evaluate things as they occur. Unless you're interested in an assembly line. Precedents are blinding.

>>8329149
/t

>>8329187
You haven't answered me.
When things occur, how do you determine if something is good or bad?

>>8329198
You would need to provide an example to examine. I don't know why you keep asking this.

>>8329207
Dude
You go to buy some groceries
All of the sudden a man punches you in the face and kicks you then robs you
What do you do and why?

>>8329210
>What do you do and why?
I don't stop and ask myself whether what he did was good or bad, mostly because I'm not a bungling retard. I also don't ask myself whether or not my deeming a particular zucchini unfit for my cart is good or bad.
Your situation will practically be restrained by the law of the place you inhabit, not but what is good or bad. You need tighter questions.

>>8329225
You aren't answering because you don't know the answer. You just proven why is necessary to know waht is good and bad.
Thank you.
Now can someone please tell me if any philosopher ever defined good or bad and how?

>>8329087
Nobody defined those things because, well, they are no things per se and just perceptions and therefore fleeting and in themselves empty of content.

>>8329232
Aristotle, you fucking twat.

>>8329232
>You aren't answering because you don't know the answer
No kidding I don't have an answer. How can you be this fucking dense?
And no, not by any measure.

>>8329264
Yes, but can't there be some rule of thumb that defines what is good and what is bad?
Like
Good is X Bad is Z
Obviously they would be subjective answers but I want to know if anyone ever came up with something like that.

>>8329273
And what did he say?

>>8329278
Hitler.

>>8329210

For me, this would be bad, but for him it would be good.

>>8329278
Good= survival

Bad= not survival

>>8329292
Exactly. I'm just searching for definitions of philosophers.

>>8329296
MFW that's the first actual answer to my question

>>8329306
The nature of your question is idiotic. Secondly, your phrasing is poor for the result you wanted.
>Has any philosopher defined, or attempted to define, what is good and bad?
Your failure is in the word accurately. The answer to that is no.
For hundreds of attempts, fucking google a list of philosophers who have worked on ethics.

>accurately

What do you mean by that, anon

>>8329315
Everyone has raged on the "idiotic" questioning yet no one has answered or made an attempt to correct it. It seems to me that no one on /lit/ knows shit about philosophy. So much for the muh greeks meme

>>8329278
What you want is a supersensous thing in-itself that is somehow immutable and eternal and not related and susceptible to change, and there is no such thing.

>>8329328
You must be an unparalleled genius, you're incoherent to the rest of us.
There are many examples of people who have attempted to do what you want. From Aristotle to Kant to fucking Anscombe.
Countless attempts. I don't see how it is my fault you can't type in 'philosophers ethics' into a search engine.

>>8329232
>>8329328
Look, OP, it's not all been rage or incontinence. You ignored
>>8329149
for example.

But here are a few attempts:

John Stuart Mill: X is more good than Y if X provides more utility to a greater number of people. Therefore, the good is utility.

Kant: You should do that which you can at the same time will to be a universal maxim. Therefore the good is the promotion of a cosmopolitan world order where everybody acts with universality in mind.

Socrates: The highest activity of man is contemplation. Therefore the good is questioning, not answering or acting.

And the list goes on.

So OP, what do you mean by an "accurate" definition of the good? Let's start by asking which of these three you like best?

>>8329087

This is Aristotle:

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. NE I 1

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else [...], clearly this must be the good and the chief good. NE I 2

Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness [eudaimonia], and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ. NE I 4

[T]he function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, [...] if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete. NE I 7

>>8329328
It's not our responsibility to "correct" your question for you

>>8329402

At least try to be accurate.

Mill identifies the good with pleasure and lack of pain. Utility is a function of the pleasure and pain that's caused by an action.

Kant believes that the only thing that we can call good without qualifications is a good will. A good will is a rational will, and this means that it acts because of a rational principle: the categorical imperative.

The standard conception is that for Socrates virtues are a kind of knowledge, which is why he's always trying to define virtues. Saying that he believed that 'questioning is better than answering or acting' is incorrect. He said, if Plato's Apology is accurate, that "the life which is unexamined is not worth living", but this does not imply that the only good thing is to examine one's own life.

>>8329093
take an analogy is food. say a child is hungry; if the child is not so hungry as to eat anything that is given to him, the child will take the tastier food present. let's say broccoli and ice cream. a child, given these two choices would almost certainly rather have the ice cream, thereby making him happy. what's an important distinction is the healthiness of the two foods--the broccoli is good for the child, and the ice cream bad for the child. we can assume that in this case, good means proper nutrition and low calories, broccoli is a proven healthy food. if the child chooses to be happy, he therefore chooses what is bad for him.

yr argument sucks. also, who gives a shit about "you"? we're talking about humanity, not you, the unrepresentative outlier.

>>8329129
political philosophy? jurisprducence? ethics? aesthetics, even? morality and the notions of justice, liberty, and human rights?

>>8329129
>"real life" isn't theoretical

>>8330123
>>8330127

>>8329087
>"good" and "bad"

It decides if you get presents.

>>8329087
Protagoras.

Whatever is good, is whatever makes an individual come closer to "eudamonia" and whatever is bad is whatever makes an individual less likely to do so.

>>8330982
>whatever is bad is whatever makes an individual less likely to do so

This does not explain shitposting.

Fail.

>>8330987
>This does not explain shitposting.

Shitposting is pleasurable for some, and as Aristotle said, you need at least some measure of pleasure in life to reach eudaimonia, just like you need some measure of wealth, honor, respect etc.

Your life just can't be based solely on those things.

>>8329123
Exactly, his ethics are a perfectly internally consistent logical system. . . . with no practical application to reality.

Fuck Kant with a garden rake for wasting his considerable intellect building a scale model fantasy system of ethics for his internal autist world.

>>8330999
>pleasure is good.

>>8331015
Yes pleasure is good, it's just not *as* good as the feeling of well-being and happiness, because pleasure is also associated with deep pain if it is used to a degree that is pathological.

>>8331029
Would you like some blocks to play with?

>>8331046
Why did you make this thread?

>>8331051
Is it not pleasurable?

>>8329087
good is that at which all things aim

>>8331059
So pleasure is good then. Then you should retract this >>8331015

>>8331062
So good is Will. Which is why we "fire at Will"

The good is undefinable.

- Yours truly, G .E. Moore, the solver of Metaethics

>>8331063
Retract it to please you?

>>8331067
No, because you agree with me.

>>8329087
good and bad are defined by the zeitgeist in which you grew up, there cant be any definition for them because they are learned through propaganda and are learned prolly by individual cases where your parents said lmao dont do this it not good and the rest you prolly induced yourself nor are they objective and anyone who says otherwise is an analytic or just very old back in history

>>8331082
>propaganda

cuckoo alert

>>8331079
Pleasure inhibits your growth.

>>8331093
radical freedom ;^DDDDDDDDDDD

>>8329096
Excellent.

>>8331099
Conversely, so does a complete absence of pleasure.

Those who dwell in perpetual suffering cannot learn or grow because they are in constant pain.

In many ways, for a contented man pleasure occurs simply through the absence of pain.

You can sit a while and appreciate your life, eat and drink, speak with loved ones and not worry, and this is truly the best thing.

>>8331154
Pleasure is not the absence of pain.

>>8331160
Is it not?

I consider the absence of pain to be wholly satisfying.

I look at my life and I breathe in and out and I feel happy because there is no problem.

Everything is going fine.

If you need some real distraction in the form of entertainment, sex, or the like then perhaps your life is unsatisfying, and so you feel the need to reach outside it to bring sensations of goodness and contentedness into yourself from elsewhere?

Do you know the nature of your own poverty?
Did you suspect others were all as you were?

>>8331173
The happy idiot.

>>8329110
Jesus christ newfag pseuds these days

>>8329560
Oooh this is embarassing. Including Mill in a list of philosophers was obviously a joke. OP obviously never read Kant so the phrase "categorical imperative" does not help. And who said the only good thing is to examine ones life for Socrates? No its the *highest* way of life, not the *only* good thing you can do. Sheesh.

>>8331004
Wow it's sad you never read him. Maybe put down the Nietzsche and try going to sources?

>>8331187
>examining one's life is the utmost

Ya'll trolled.

>>8331180
Not always, but I've found that thinking about life and the nature of happiness only makes it more elusive.

Navel-Gazing impedes one's ability to function in life; those who can devote themselves to the here and now are the happiest.

>>8331213
Oprah endorses you.

>>8331195
Listen, if I read every Tractatus and Leviathan and Summa Theologica going I'd not have much time to do things that I'd actually consider worthwhile, so I'll stick with the Sparknotes; but a man who's Categorical Imperative precludes lying under any circumstance, even to prevent a greater misdeed (the classic Axe-Murderer asking you where your family is scenario) is clearly treating morality as a sort of mandate from above that has inherent merit beyond that of preventing harm from occurring to human beings.

Which is a load of pig shit dressed up in flowery rationale, if you'll pardon my expression.

I'm afraid I don't think much of him, nor you for defending him.

People often say the food is delicious, or playing videogames is enjoyable, or having sex is pleasurable, or jogging feels good.
All this could be generalized into "good" in a broad sense. So, good-evil can be summarized to biological triggers of pleasure and biological triggers of pain/disgust etc...
But then you can say something is good for a plant or for the universe. Or you could say that something can trigger pleasure and make you addicted, ultimately destroying your life, that would be bad.
So, maybe a broader entity is necessary instead of biological triggers:

Good and bad/evil is about EXISTENCE and INEXISTENCE.

>>8329087
I hear the Buddhist lessons,
primarily the Eightfold,
of the Right Action, Right Concentration etc..

What's right is what brings you closer to liberation.

What's wrong is what strays and hinders your path to liberation.

>Ctrl+F spook
>no results

>>8331263
a day slow on meme is the path to ru-in.

I don't really get what you guys are looking for. Are you looking some transcendent definition that transcends or precedes us or what? I think these two words mean something only in relation.

>>8329087
Its very important to define what we mean by good and bad. If you were to weigh fruit or vegetables at the supermarket, you'd use an objective, logical system of measurement. Yet when choosing between good and bad, people generally don't use any logical system of measurement. We're capable of being rational, yet we employ a logical system of measurement for differentiating weights, and not for differentiating between good and bad, which is a far more important choice.

>"But most are deceived in the same manner as Theopompus the orator, when he blames Plato for defining everything, " For what," says he, "did none of us, before you, use the words good and /art, or did we utter them as empty sounds, without understanding what each of them meant? " Why, who tells you, Theopompus, that we had not natural ideas and pre-conceptions of each of these? But it is not possible to adapt pre-conceptions to their corre- spondent subjects, without having minutely distinguished them, and examined what is the proper subject to each." - Epictetus

In practice, good is what we perceive to be the most advantageous, and bad what we perceive to be most disadvantageous. Different conceptions of good and bad arise because people have differing opinions as to what their advantage is, and bad occurs when people are mistaken about their advantage.

But how are we to define good and bad in a rational manner, according to a logical system of measurement as rational beings should? We must consider what we mean when we say anything is good or bad, like "this is a good knife" or "this is a bad soap". A good knife cuts well, and a bad soap cleans poorly. Generally speaking then, we call 'good' those things which fulfill their function, or possess a large amount of their definitive quality.

This definition of good is objective, universal and based on reason. To demonstrate this, let's apply it to humans, rather than objects. We must begin by asking, what is the definitive quality of human beings? The rational faculty. Following this logic, a human is good in so far as he is rational, and consequently bad in so far as he is irrational.

>>8329087
Nietzsche made pretty clear distinctions between the separate paradigms of "good and bad" and "good and evil". He continues and describes the tensions and consequences of their existence and interactions with one another. Check out On the genealogy of morals for an in depth exploration of these ideas

>>8331748

By this system of measurement, most of the moral laws we are familiar with follow. Moreover, this system identifies where good and bad exist: In our choices. This is a positive approach, because our choices, and consequently good and bad, are entirely in our own control. This means that good and bad lie only in our own choices. It is not about what happens to you, but how you respond to external events and appearances that matters.

>>8331748
>>8331833

"Why should reason and the rational faculty be the most important measure?" you might ask. "Why is it the definitive quality of a human being?"

The answer is two-fold: Firstly because reason is the primary means by which we experience, comprehend and interact with everything external to us. Secondly because the rational faculty is the only part of us that is capable of comprehending, examining and controlling itself.

>>8329087
i dont agree 100% with Kant, but i think his "The only thing good is a good will, consequences are irrelevant" sounds legitimate to me

>>8331818

Was about to post this.

'Good' and 'Evil' is the wrong dichotomy.

Don't waste your time.

>tfw dualisms

>>8331160
marquis de sade might want to talk with you

>>8332070
That's "pleasure comes with pain."

Fail.

>MFW so many of these definitions make no substantive reference to social life and are essentially meaningless tautologies
>utility
>kant
>übermensch

>>8331502
Using "transcend" twice in the same sentence is cringy.

>>8332086
Yes, because de sade famously wrote in english.

>>8332110
I hope you believe me when I tell you I didn't mean to.

>>8332165
Of course I do.

>>8331748
>>8331833
>>8331949

Does this guy know what's up? This seems convincing

>>8332243
He's apeing (or trying to) the way of speaking you might find in a Platonic dialogue. It's just noodling tho, the actual meat is trash.

>>8332243

Does it?

He defends the identification of the good man with the rational man on the basis that from that position 'most of the moral laws we are familiar with follow'. This is a good reason to defend an argument for morality, but makes no sense unless there is some independent case that our inherited moral laws are legitimate. Since this argument makes no account for the sociological facts of human life, it really cannot justify that appeal.

Secondly, there is really little legitimacy to the argument that 'reason' is the defining quality of human kind. What is at the heart of 'reason' - the ability to understand consequences? The possession of language? Arithmetical ability? I don't think it is clear that any such thing is definitively possessed by humans and not animals, and really what passes for 'rationality' is so culturally specific anyway that it is more a social fact than an innate quality of humans.

In particular, it seems pretty absurd to make a general claim that humans have a use at all. Isn't a human's role quite clearly defined by their social context? Isn't what it is to be a good wife very different from what it is to be a good teacher, and aren't these roles more important for morality than the fact of being a human - if only because participation in human social life is a much neater qualifying criterion than 'rationality'.

>>8332256

I'm not yet Socrates, but I can still live as if I want to be him.

>>8332305

>He defends the identification of the good man with the rational man on the basis that from that position 'most of the moral laws we are familiar with follow'.

You've misread my argument. I defended the identification of the good man with the rational man with the assertion that reason is the definitive quality of man. The fact that most moral laws will follow from this was just an aside.

>This is a good reason to defend an argument for morality, but makes no sense unless there is some independent case that our inherited moral laws are legitimate.

I took it for granted that it was obvious that most of our moral laws (for example, the injunctions not to steal or kill) have a rational basis and a rational purpose.

>Secondly, there is really little legitimacy to the argument that 'reason' is the defining quality of human kind. What is at the heart of 'reason' - the ability to understand consequences? The possession of language? Arithmetical ability?

I've already given an argument defending rationality and reason as the definitive quality of man here >>8331949 . You haven't refuted or even addressed it at all.

>Isn't what it is to be a good wife very different from what it is to be a good teacher

Yes, of course, both roles have different functions so it follows that the good of one is not necessarily the good of the other.

>and aren't these roles more important for morality than the fact of being a human

No, not really. We are human first and foremost, and those roles are merely social constructs and biological processes used by humans to sustain and propogate our species. In line with what I've said above, a good teacher does not necessarily make a good human being, while a good human being can possibly make a good teacher.

>if only because participation in human social life is a much neater qualifying criterion than 'rationality'.

It's not. We comprehend and engage in human social life primarily through reason and the use of our rational faculty. A human can exist and survive without a social life, but without the use of reason a human isn't different from any other animal.

>>8329129
Structuralism sure is a bitch, ain't it?

>>8332697
>I took it for granted that it was obvious that most of our moral laws (for example, the injunctions not to steal or kill) have a rational basis and a rational purpose.
Sam Harris alert ignore the shit non philosophy

>>8332697
>You haven't refuted or even addressed it at all.
I'll do it with two (2) phrases
Featherless biped
Radical choice

>>8332731
Not in mathematics.

>>8332697

>You've misread my argument. I defended the identification of the good man with the rational man with the assertion that reason is the definitive quality of man. The fact that most moral laws will follow from this was just an aside.

I never suggested that this was a central tenet of your argument, but if you make an assertion of this sort I think it is fairly tame to assume that you regard it as an argument in favour.

>I took it for granted that it was obvious that most of our moral laws (for example, the injunctions not to steal or kill) have a rational basis and a rational purpose.

That cannot be taken for granted in an argument for any particular moral system since it is the point of moral systems to legitimate these rules.

>I've already given an argument defending rationality and reason as the definitive quality of man here >>8331949 . You haven't refuted or even addressed it at all.

I addressed it when I questioned what it is that defines 'reason'. There is no really distinct definition that is not so broad as to be applicable to animals or so narrow as to be anything other than essentially a cultural artefact.

>Yes, of course, both roles have different functions so it follows that the good of one is not necessarily the good of the other.

And yet if what is good for a person is defined by what makes a good human, what is good for one should be equally good for the other?

>No, not really. We are human first and foremost, and those roles are merely social constructs and biological processes used by humans to sustain and propogate our species. In line with what I've said above, a good teacher does not necessarily make a good human being, while a good human being can possibly make a good teacher.

It is useless to dismiss what is social constructed as if it is not central to what makes a moral life. The way we behave is almost entirely social, and therefore without making reference to social roles and social constructions we cannot provide any effective account of the good life.

It's true that a good teacher does not necessarily make a good human being, but there is nothing that, in a complex modern society, we do merely as human beings apart from our various social roles. We eat and procreate, and it is true that there can be excellence in these pursuits, but the largest part of human behaviour (in fact almost all of it) takes place in terms of defined social roles or social practises. You cannot refuse to place these at the centre of your analysis, and yet provide any successful account of what it is to be good.

>>8332697
>>8332798


>It's not. We comprehend and engage in human social life primarily through reason and the use of our rational faculty. A human can exist and survive without a social life, but without the use of reason a human isn't different from any other animal.

You have not yet defined 'reason' in a way that distinguishes the person from the animal, and so I can't really respond to this argument. It is probably important to note, though, that rationality is in a strong sense a product of social life and not a prerequisite of it. If you take Kuhn seriously then you might well be arguing that only your particular society is moral because only it contains rational individuals. Are you? Why don't you seem to place much importance on these issues even though you are defining morality entirely according to rationality?

Good is that which is beneficial to our own will (or the particular manifestation of the will within us) and does not hamper our exertion of it in any way; bad is the diametrical opposite of that.

>>8332733

Do you want me to give an example of a moral law that I can prove has a rational basis and purpose? You're focusing on an irrelevant explanation of an asside comment I made, and not addressing any of my arguments. Incidentally, I've never read Sam Harris but from what Ive read of his views I have very few in common with him.

>Featherless biped

I don't see how this in any way refutes my argument. Can you explain how it refutes my argument?

>>8332840
>I don't see how this in any way refutes my argument. Can you explain how it refutes my argument?
You are being so obtuse as to be meaningless. Like a featherless biped is the definition of a man. Or a plucked chicken.

Radical choice is a shot at this idea of rationality means control. To be rational is to forfeit control if anything.

You are practically quoting Harris' theory of ethics (more or less "rationality and logic: ????; ethics and morality!")

>>8332798

>I never suggested that this was a central tenet of your argument

That's exactly what you did. You said "He defends the identification of the good man with the rational man on the basis that from that position 'most of the moral laws we are familiar with follow'." here >>8332305

>That cannot be taken for granted in an argument for any particular moral system since it is the point of moral systems to legitimate these rules.

That was just an asside and not a necessary part of my argument, which functions just as well without it. Again, why are you focussing on an asside comment and persistently ignoring the vital parts of the arguments?

>And yet if what is good for a person is defined by what makes a good human, what is good for one should be equally good for the other?

>what is good for a person is defined by what makes a good human

That wasn't what I proposed though. My proposition was 'good is that which is capable of performing well its particular function.'

Can you not tell the difference between those two propositions?

>It is useless to dismiss what is social constructed as if it is not central to what makes a moral life.

I'm not dismissing "what is social constructed", I'm just distinguishing what is the proper subject of each. Social constructs are the products of reason. The very concept of a 'construct' is that it was constructed - I'm asserting that they are constructed by the rational faculties of humans. Being constructed by rational faculties, social constructs are subject to rational faculties.

>but there is nothing that, in a complex modern society, we do merely as human beings apart from our various social roles.

And what about philosophy, or are there other animals known to philosophize? What about the process of making conscious, rational and moral decisions? In short, what about the examined life?

>>8332918
>And what about philosophy, or are there other animals known to philosophize? What about the process of making conscious, rational and moral decisions? In short, what about the examined life?
Montaigne covered this exact argument in his une apologie de Raymond Sebond

>>8332901

>You are being so obtuse as to be meaningless. Like a featherless biped is the definition of a man. Or a plucked chicken.

You have yet to expalin how that refutes my argument that reason is the definitive quality of man.

>Radical choice is a shot at this idea of rationality means control. To be rational is to forfeit control if anything.

Referencing the term 'radical choice' doesn't demonstrate how the concept 'radical choice' refutes my argument. To refute my argument you need an explanation of the concept, and you also need to logically substantiate your assertion that "To be rational is to forfeit control if anything".

>>8332949
>To refute my argument you need an explanation of the concept,
Define every word in your posts from now on and I'll start copy pasting explanations of well known philosophical ideas for you.

>>8332918

>That's exactly what you did.

No it isn't. I suggested that this was an argument you made, not that it was a particularly important one or a 'central tenet'. Are you retracting that argument?

>That was just an asside and not a necessary part of my argument

I guess you are, which is fine. I don't know why you're so hung up on it.

>That wasn't what I proposed though. My proposition was 'good is that which is capable of performing well its particular function.'
>Can you not tell the difference between those two propositions?

And you're arguing that the defining feature of a person is their humanity. Or aren't you? You seem to have been defending the first position for this whole time. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but you haven't suggested that people are to be judged by any standard other than 'what makes a good human' (rationality, in your account).

>I'm not dismissing "what is social constructed", I'm just distinguishing what is the proper subject of each. Social constructs are the products of reason. The very concept of a 'construct' is that it was constructed - I'm asserting that they are constructed by the rational faculties of humans. Being constructed by rational faculties, social constructs are subject to rational faculties.

So what, you are arguing that to live a good life is to live a rational life and a rational life is comprised of adherence to a particular set of legitimate social constructions?

Firstly, if it is true that social constructions are rational constructions, it is nonetheless the case that very few people robustly justify them, or even seek to do so. Does it follow from this that the vast majority of people (all those who do not subscribe to social constructions for their real rational basis) are immoral or at least amoral? I think it is clear that this would discount most individuals as moral individuals.

Secondly, it is pretty ludicrous to claim that social constructions are rational constructions unless you mean to describe them as 'rational' in an exceptionally loose sense. Consider, for instance, the social construction of parenthood which is important in modern western societies. What is especially rational about the idea that a biological father should be responsible for his child? There may be something, but it is not clear when anybody initiated this tradition by rationally setting it out and implementing it. Perhaps this isn't what you mean by 'rationally constructed', but I don't see any other coherent notion.

>What about the process of making conscious, rational and moral decisions? In short, what about the examined life?

You don't see a problem with complaining that only humans are moral and rational when I am disputing your notion of the moral and rational?

>And what about philosophy, or are there other animals known to philosophize?

In any case, I said 'apart from our social roles'. Ordinary people do not philosophise, academics do.

The good is that which allows the universe to continue. The bad is that which does not allow the universe to continue. As value is predicated upon existence, the only value is existence. Everything else is ego and spooks.

>>8332948

Any assertion that we cannot trust our reasoning is ultimately meaningless because reason is our only means of ascertaining anything. We only comprehend the asserion itself through reason.

You prove yourself wrong on a daily basis. When you eat, where do you bring your hand - to your mouth, or to your eye? Have you ever ended up at the shop when you meant to take a bath? When did you ever mistake your saucepan for a dish, or a spoon for a skewer?

>>8332967

>explanations of well known philosophical ideas

You're being so petulant. Asking you to define something as controversial as rationality, especially given your persistent refusal to recognise that it is a problematic term, is not an unreasonable request.

>>8332992
>Any assertion that we cannot trust our reasoning is ultimately meaningless
He argues that animals can also reason. And that's a poor version of that sort of argument really. All reasoning is tautology after all and also meaningless. t. Bloody Wittgenstein

>>8332998
I'm talking about radical choice, you're mixing me up with the other guy. What you're expressing in that post is also more or less what I'm saying about the rationality thing too tho and hence the demand for definition.

I wouldn't even mind if the guy was just like "I'm not sure what that is", but this whole wanky posturing is tiresome so he can beg for his treats.

>>8333025

Yeah sorry deleted my post, confused you with the other guy

>>8332986

>No it isn't. I suggested that this was an argument you made, not that it was a particularly important one or a 'central tenet'. Are you retracting that argument?

As I've said many times already, it was an asside comment and not a component of my argument.

>Are you retracting that argument?

It was a (only tangentially relevant) single-entendre proposition, not an argument. You mistook it for a part of my argument, just as I said. And I see now why you did it - because you simply don't know what an argument is.

>And you're arguing that the defining feature of a person is their humanity. Or aren't you?

No. I've made no reference to the concept of 'person' so far. I'm talking speicifically about humans, and not persons, because persons are not necessarily humans.

>the category of "person" may be taken to include such non-human entities as animals, artificial intelligences, or extraterrestrial life, as well as legal entities such as corporations, sovereign states and other polities, or estates in probate.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

You're incorrectly rewording my arguments and propositions in your own words, and then refuting arguments of your own creation. Strawman arguments in other words.

>you are arguing that to live a good life is to live a rational life

So good sor far

>a rational life is comprised of adherence to a particular set of legitimate social constructions?

I haven't argued this anywhere.

Again, you're referencing an asside comment where I said that many of our common moral laws will naturally follow from rational thinking.

The rest of your post is incoherent babble attacking an strawman argument of your own invention that I didn't even make.

>>8333033

>You mistook it for a part of my argument

Of course, I see now that you were simply making a harmless statement which you believe to be false and had no relationship to anything else you were writing. Forgive my unreasonable assumption otherwise.

>Strawman arguments in other words

Can you make your argument clearer then? Because so far, whenever I challenge any element of it you just shuffle about and ignore the question, which I suppose is why I have apparently been misled as to your real meaning.

>The rest of your post is incoherent babble attacking an strawman argument of your own invention that I didn't even make.

Okay then. In future I suggest you should make your argument clearly and be prepared to defend both your assumptions and definitions, since you obviously do not care to defend or even clearly expound either. You should stop playing at reading philosophy really if these things do not concern you.

>>8333049
>Can you make your argument clearer then? Because so far, whenever I challenge any element of it you just shuffle about and ignore the question, which I suppose is why I have apparently been misled as to your real meaning.
This is turning more and more into Sam Harris posting. Is that anon actually Harris?

Good and bad by themselves don't mean anything. You have to first define "good/bad to whom/what?". The only people that define such concepts in a universal way are theists.

>>8333059

Apparently.

>Argues that morality = rational behaviour
>Obviously I don't need to define rationality it's just a concept we use all the time obviously
>Asking whether it really accounts for anything or is coherent is just STRAWMAN

>>8333060
I'll say it again: Protagoras

It's a bit of a cop out but also a p good answer.

>>8333060

I don't think this is true in practise. People in general constantly debate about whether a particular thing is right or wrong - theistic or otherwise. They believe themselves to be having a substantive debate about a real fact of reality which is not specific to any particular person, since they would act very differently if the topic for debate was 'do you have a headache?' or something similar.

>>8333033

>Firstly, if it is true that social constructions are rational constructions, it is nonetheless the case that very few people robustly justify them, or even seek to do so. Does it follow from this that the vast majority of people (all those who do not subscribe to social constructions for their real rational basis) are immoral or at least amoral? I think it is clear that this would discount most individuals as moral individuals.

see my above post.

>Secondly, it is pretty ludicrous to claim that social constructions are rational constructions unless you mean to describe them as 'rational' in an exceptionally loose sense. Consider, for instance, the social construction of parenthood which is important in modern western societies. What is especially rational about the idea that a biological father should be responsible for his child? There may be something, but it is not clear when anybody initiated this tradition by rationally setting it out and implementing it. Perhaps this isn't what you mean by 'rationally constructed', but I don't see any other coherent notion.

I siad that many of the moral laws, which are social constructs, are the products of rational faculties. It does not follow from this that all social constructs are rational, because not all social constructs are the many moral laws I mentioned.

When we use the words good and bad we can use them to descibe the difference between something that pleases us and something that displeases us. Like food tasting good or food tasting bad.

When you extrapolate this definition to morality as a whole what is good would be what pleases us and that would therefore be different for each person. So should the definition of good be taken on an average of what pleases the most individuals? Would you factor in how much it pleases each individual? Surely the difference between good and bad is a scale not a concrete line since some things are better than others but worse than others as well.

Ultimately there is no good or bad. In the wild there is no morality, only benefits to survival or group survival. Our laws are not a question of right or wrong, good or bad, they are simply a case of if you do something detrimental to the group you will be ganged up upon and made unable to continue this, either through killing as once was or imprisonment and seclusion.

We are taught good from bad, these concepts are passed down, but time changes what is acceptable so there is no fixed good or bad. Good and bad change depending on where you take your perspective from and when you take it from, so it is impossible to define something so relative.

>>8333079

You literally said

>Social constructs are the products of reason.

How am I supposed to construe that in the very specific way that you have just re-written it unless you are specific? It's fine to change your mind or notice a mistake in your own argument, but don't just pretend that you haven't.

>>8333085

Then how do you account for the difference between debates about 'what pleases me' and 'what is good'?

To quote a post I made earlier

>I don't think this is true in practise. People in general constantly debate about whether a particular thing is right or wrong - theistic or otherwise. They believe themselves to be having a substantive debate about a real fact of reality which is not specific to any particular person, since they would act very differently if the topic for debate was 'do you have a headache?' or something similar.

>>8333085
Nietzsche argued this better in genealogy of morals

>>8333073
>>8333069

Yes, I'm arguing for relativism. But my point is, first these concepts mean nothing without a conscious being. For a lifeless universe there's no good or bad.
Now, I use the definition of good as "benefitial to" and bad as the opposite. Therefore, you need to define to whom/what, once agreed upon that (survival of humanity, well being of life forms, for example), then you can argue from a scientific perspective. This doesn't solve everything, of course, but it's a nice start.

>>8333110
>But my point is, first these concepts mean nothing without a conscious being.
Man is the measure of all things.
There. Done. Answered back here >>8330972

>>8333118
Yes, I agree with that, but you have to start there, I think it's possible to go deeper while still being objective.

>>8333049

>Of course, I see now that you were simply making a harmless statement which you believe to be false and had no relationship to anything else you were writing

Again, it was an aside comment to support my argument, not a component of my argument.

>Can you make your argument clearer then?

Not really. Here's my entire argument >>8331748, feel free to address it.

>>8333066

I haven't yet been asked to define rationality. I'll do it now:

“Rational” as a descriptive term means that human beings have the capacity to use 'impressions' in a reflective manner. Animals, like humans, use their impressions of the world in that their behavior is guided by what they perceive their circumstances to be. But human beings also have the faculty of assent, allowing us to examine the content of our impressions to determine whether they are true or false.

>>8333131

Assent is regulated by our awareness of logical consistency or contradiction between the proposition under consideration and beliefs that one already holds: when we are not aware of any consideration, we assent readily, but when we perceive a conflict we are strongly constrained to reject one or the other of the conflicting views. Thus Medea kills her children because she believes it is to her advantage to do so; if someone were to show her clearly that she is deceived in this belief, she would not do it. Our hatred of being deceived, our inability to accept as true what we clearly see to be false, is the most basic fact about human beings.

>>8333098

I'd be very surprised if he'd argued it worse.

But what is better? What is worse?
Is his argument good and mine bad?
What is good and what is bad?

Can you apply objectivism to human concepts and arguments. They don't really exist so no facts apply, all we have is relativity.

>>8333131

>I haven't yet been asked to define rationality. I'll do it now

That's ludicrous: here I quote two instances in which I either asked you to define rationality or pointed out that you have not done so and that it is central to your argument.

>Secondly, there is really little legitimacy to the argument that 'reason' is the defining quality of human kind. What is at the heart of 'reason' - the ability to understand consequences? The possession of language? Arithmetical ability? I don't think it is clear that any such thing is definitively possessed by humans and not animals, and really what passes for 'rationality' is so culturally specific anyway that it is more a social fact than an innate quality of humans.
>I addressed it when I questioned what it is that defines 'reason'. There is no really distinct definition that is not so broad as to be applicable to animals or so narrow as to be anything other than essentially a cultural artefact.

>Again, it was an aside comment to support my argument, not a component of my argument.

Ah, sorry, I seem to have also missed your wise and subtle distinction between what 'supports and argument' and what is 'a component of it'. My apologies once again.

>“Rational” as a descriptive term means that human beings have the capacity to use 'impressions' in a reflective manner. Animals, like humans, use their impressions of the world in that their behavior is guided by what they perceive their circumstances to be. But human beings also have the faculty of assent, allowing us to examine the content of our impressions to determine whether they are true or false.

How on earth do you conclude that animals cannot decide whether their impressions are true or false? We know full well that animals are capable of experimenting with which of their 'impressions' are true, because we have seen crows solving puzzles and monkeys learning which behaviours will harm other members of their species. In fact, it is quite impossible to imagine any complex living creature which could survive without understanding that it can be mistaken, since all such creatures do learn from their errors and this is how they escape predators or satisfy their owners.

>>8333152
Relativity isn't opposite to objectivity. It's quite different to subjectivity.

And just read GoM preferably in German

>>8333089

I never said that ALL social constructs were rational products. Given the context it's perfectly clear that I was referring to those social constructs that are the many moral laws I mentioned.

What exactly about my argument are you even disputing? Are you going to spend all night talking about an aside comment from a post seperate to the one I made my actual argument in?

>>8333177

I'm sorry if your persistent refusal to address any of the several criticisms I made of your argument has forced me into contesting the only issue which you actually addressed in your responses

>>8333166

>That's ludicrous: here I quote two instances in which I either asked you to define rationality or pointed out that you have not done so and that it is central to your argument.

You didn't ask outright in either of those posts.

>Ah, sorry, I seem to have also missed your wise and subtle distinction between what 'supports and argument' and what is 'a component of it'. My apologies once again.

Let me help you: Here's the post containing my argument >>8331748 , and here's my post commenting on the argument I made >>8331833

>How on earth do you conclude that animals cannot decide whether their impressions are true or false?

See >>8333144 where I describe what I mean by the faculty of assent.

>>8333166

>Ah, sorry, I seem to have also missed your wise and subtle distinction between what 'supports and argument' and what is 'a component of it'.

An argument contains multiple components, most notably premises and conclusions.

The comment from which you have made a mountain was a single entendre proposition.
It's pretty clear you don't know what an argument is, and that you have little grasp of formal logic.

>>8333144
>Thus Medea kills her children because she believes it is to her advantage to do so; if someone were to show her clearly that she is deceived in this belief, she would not do it.
You're misusing an argument for the tripartite theory of the soul. Euripedes who iirc was the inventor of the matrix ide, depicted a bipartite soul with Medea that showed her going mad and giving into her rage in contrast to rational deliberation

>>8333215
>>8333199

You've been trolled hard lad. Can't you see he's baiting you?

>>8329093
Doug? Dough stamper is that you?! how is coming season 5? should we be exited about it?

>>8333270
I fucking hope so.

>>8333276
you better hope so

>>8329087
You're missing what philosophy is

tl;dr